🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7527@obdient.chi.il.us> Doug Blair writes:

>The weekly stats posting is just that: statistics.  Facts.  It is a fact that
>in the week cited sites gagme and trinity moved more than 12 megs of traffic
>through clout and chinet moved more than 6 megs.  It is also fact that these
>files moved without difficulty and that clout administrators noted nothing
>abnormal about that.  In other words, the email system worked just the way it
>was intended.

Thanks for your explination, Doug, and your work in making the stats
available. This is a generally thankless task.

In my view, and I don't believe I am alone, the clout project is more 
than a technical innovation. It also has social implications, and those
are to a great extent the reason for the reports.

We also cannot assume that clout is being used as an "email system"
exclusively. At least not in the ordinary context of mail being
messages from individual to individual, or even group related.

It is obvious that other sorts of information is being transferred 
through the system. Otherwise we would not see the volume we're
seeing.

Personally, I don't care. The charter, however, and the original
intentions, were for "personal e-mail." If the sorts of activities
which we are seeing continue, I have no objection to modifying the
charter and the system mission. But I would have severe and strenuous
objections to permitting the continuation of the existing activities
involving the infrastructure without modifying the charter, and thus
the mission statement and understandings.

There is a difference too in the understandings of the terms "unusual" 
and "abnormal." You seem to be using them interchangably, and I respectfully
request you don't. Yarrow addressed some legitimate concerns in his article 
earlier today. I think the outline he has proposed to be legitimate and
completely honest.

>Wether the system should be used for emailing .gif's, ftpmail of 
>source code or other high volume applications is a policy matter 
>for the steering and/or funcspec committees and/or for the system 
>administrators of individual sites to determine and police locally.

I agree, to a point. This is a collective effort. We have our marching
orders from /usr/group/chicago, who are involved, though perhaps not
as deeply in terms of direct expenditure of energy as the subgroups
you mention. It seems to me that the existing infrastructure is not
sufficient to permit the unrestricted expansion of services presently
understood to be "usual" or "normal" (in the context of your article)
which is actually several orders of magnitude beyond the raw amount
of "personal email" envisioned by the charter. The charter foresaw the
voluntary expansion of services and offers regulatory oversight by the
stering committee. There is a mandate that nothing will interfere with
the orderly distribution of personal email. The steering committee is
bound to assure that the primary mission is fulfilled.

Completely setting aside the political aspects of site based sibling
rivalries understood by some to be at the crux of the present discussion,
there are some legitimate and serious concerns regarding the transfer of
large amounts of data through the clout email distribution system. Short
of another /usr/group/chicago general meeting where details can be
addressed in a sensible fashion, I believe this forum is the right
place to mention concerns and to try to achieve a working concensus
if at all possible.

I believe everyone associated with the Clout Project is doing a 
wonderful job. As a volunteer effort, I can honestly say that the
results have surpassed my expectations. Thank you one and all.

Bill Vajk  (The name was mangled in translation.)

learn@igloo.scum.com
learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu
vajk@chinet.il.us
learn@ddsw1.mcs.com	[DEAD]